Telangana High Court
WP/27902/1997 of Y. Venkatesham Vs The Managing Director on 26 December 2005
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO :27902 OF 1997 DATED: 26.12.2005 Between: Y.Venkatesham petitioner And The Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad Hyderabad and others Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO :27902 OF 1997
DATED: 26.12.2005
Between:
Y.Venkatesham petitioner
And
The Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad Hyderabad and others Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO. 27902 OF 1997
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in notproviding employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds.
The facts in brief which lead to filing of the present writ petition are that the father ofpetitioner while working with the respondent Corporation as Driver was removedfrom service in the year 1988 alleging certain irregularities. Questioning the saidremoval order he has raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D. No. 675 of 1993 (old I.D.No. 553/88). During the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court, fatherof the petitioner died on 1.10.1991. Thereafter, the Labour Court passed an awarddated 2.7.1993 directing the respondent corporation to extend all the benefits towhich the father of the petitioner was entitled to. The petitioner made an applicationfor appointment on compassionate grounds on 16.5.1997 and attended the interviewheld on 27.5.1997. The grievance of the petitioner is that similar persons interviewedalong with him were issued with appointment orders and no orders were granted inhis case. Hence, the present writ petition.
Per contra, the respondent corporation filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that interms of circular No.PD-89 dated 24.7.1989 the dependants of the employees whodied in harness have to file an application for appointment on compassionategrounds within a period of three years from the date of death of the deceasedemployee. Since, the petitioner has submitted his application for compassionateappointment on 16.5.1997 i.e., after lapse of 5 ½ years from the date of death of hisfather i.e., 1.10.1991 the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the SelectionCommittee as time barred one, in the meeting held on 27.5.1997.
Learned counsel for petitioner contended that during the pendency of proceedingsbefore the Labour Court, the father of the petitioner died and due to pendency of saidproceedings, he could not file the application and after conclusion of the saidproceedings has submitted his claim for compassionate appointment and the samecannot be rejected as a time barred one. Thus, he sought for a direction to therespondent corporation to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionateappointment.
Learned Standing Counsel for respondent corporation submitted that thepetitioner has not made his claim for compassionate appointment within thestipulated time and the same was rejected as time barred one by the SelectionCommittee. It is further stated that while rejecting the claim of the petitioner forcompassionate appointment vide proceedings dated 25.11.1998, the petitioner wasadvised to submit an application through his mother for grant of Additional Monetary Benefits and if any such application is received the same would be considered interms of the existing schemes and additional monetary benefits would be granted tothe mother of the petitioner.
The father of the petitioner died on 1.10.1991 and the Labour Court passed anaward dated 2.7.1993 which was published on 30.8.1993, whereas the petitionerhas made his claim for compassionate appointment only on 16.5.1997 i.e, afterlapse of about three years and nine months. Even if the date of publication of awardis taken into consideration, the claim of the petitioner would not fall within theprescribed period and the same is a time barred one. Thus, the action of therespondent corporation in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionateappointment as time barred one cannot be said to be illegal.
Conclusion
At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the writ petitionmay be disposed of directing the respondents to grant the additional monetarybenefits to the mother of the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel forrespondent agreed for the same. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of in thefollowing manner; The petitioner is directed to file an appropriate application through his mother forgrant of Additional Monetary Benefits in lieu of compassionate appointment beforethe Regional manager/second respondent. On filing such an application, the secondrespondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, expeditiously interms of circulars and the existing schemes of the corporation. No costs.
____________N.V.RAMANA,J
26.12.2005
tvk
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO :27902 OF 1997
DATED: 26.12.2005